3 ms·

Immigrants contributing 'greatly' is not an established fact. Here's a meta analysis saying that at best the economic impact is minor, and worse still only the

Immigrants contributing 'greatly' is not an established fact. Here's a meta analysis saying that at best the economic impact is minor, and worse still only the mega-rich benefit, while poor people actually suffer from it: https://www.nber.org/papers/w16736 https://www.nber.org/papers/w16736 If the birth rate is too 'low' then why not pay more benefits for having kids? Or raise the retirement age, as we obviously need to before our pensions all go bankrupt? Worse still, mass-migration is just shunting the problem down the line a generation or two, while most countries using it aren't investing enough in houses, hospitals, infrastructure, etc. to cater for the mass migration.

keepper 7y ago
“Immigrants contributing greatly is not an established fact” Funny thing to say about a country made up of immigrants... Let me guess, you’re not from nyc. You should visit Ellis island sometime. It IS the US immigration that has made it what it is now. I always love this part of a speech by Lincoln. “But when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are.“
fzeroracer 7y ago
The meta analysis you link doesn't seem to quite agree with the way you're framing it. Quoting some of the relevant paragraphs: > The likelihood and magnitude of adverse labor market effects for natives from immigration are substantially weaker than often perceived. Within the large empirical literature looking at the effects of immigration on native employment and wages, most studies find only minor displacement effects even after very large immigrant flows. On the other hand, some more recent studies have found larger effects, and many studies note that the negative effects are concentrated on certain parts of the native population. The parts of the population most typically affected are the less-educated natives or the earlier immigrant cohorts -- that is, those who are the closest substitutes to the new immigrant flow currently experienced by Europe. > Immigration is often viewed as a large fiscal burden for European public finances or as a possible saviour if correctly harnessed. This has been palpable in the recent political atmospheres of France, Italy, and Germany, for instance. Most empirical studies, however, estimate the fiscal impacts of immigration to be very small. There certainly exist large differences across migrant groups in the costs and benefits they cause for a host country; the net impact depends heavily on the migrants age, education, and duration of stay. On average, immigrants appear to have a minor positive net fiscal effect for host countries. Of course, these benefits are not uniformly distributed across the native population and sectors of the economy. The gist being that overall the adverse effects immigration has on the market is much smaller than people perceive, that those most affected are either the prior generation of immigrants or those with less education and that the negative fiscal impacts are negligible at best, with immigrants generally contributing in a positive way.
- mattmanser 7y ago
  How am I framing it? What you quoted supports what I said. Economic benefits negligible. Poor people suffer.
chillwaves 7y ago
How can the effects be minor? Immigrants are doing work for cheaper than their domestic counter parts or they wouldn't be employed. This means they are producing economic value in excess of their compensation more than their domestic peers. Where does this excess economic value go? It lowers the cost, for one. This is common sense. Given the amount of illegal immigration and the support structure that exists among employers, you will have a hard time convincing me their effect on the economy is minor. Why would anyone bother with all the trouble if what you say is accurate?
- yters 7y ago
  I could see an argument that it allows employers to significantly lower their salaries below a livable wage for non illegals who have to pay taxes and such. So, citizens are losing the job and pay which goes to someone that does not contribute to the country via taxes, and perhaps a good chunk is sent back to their home country. Thus, the end result is the country's citizenry become poorer through illegal immigration.
  - chillwaves 7y ago
    Immigrants pay taxes. I would worry more about the broader effects of globalization as a whole than I would about immigrants remitted part of their paycheck back to their home country. And dollars aren't what makes the American economy strong -- it's goods and services we get in exchange for them, in the form of imports and (as one example) immigrant labor. Before you come tell me that immigration is a net drain on the American economy, you should understand the dominant view in the field is that this is false. You will need to provide some evidence that what you are saying is true, not just a made up rationale.
    - yters 7y ago
      I said illegal immigration, not immigration in general. Does your analysis show illegal immigration is a net gain?

keepper 7y ago

“Immigrants contributing greatly is not an established fact” Funny thing to say about a country made up of immigrants... Let me guess, you’re not from nyc. You should visit Ellis island sometime. It IS the US immigration that has made it what it is now. I always love this part of a speech by Lincoln. “But when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are.“

fzeroracer 7y ago

The meta analysis you link doesn't seem to quite agree with the way you're framing it. Quoting some of the relevant paragraphs: > The likelihood and magnitude of adverse labor market effects for natives from immigration are substantially weaker than often perceived. Within the large empirical literature looking at the effects of immigration on native employment and wages, most studies find only minor displacement effects even after very large immigrant flows. On the other hand, some more recent studies have found larger effects, and many studies note that the negative effects are concentrated on certain parts of the native population. The parts of the population most typically affected are the less-educated natives or the earlier immigrant cohorts -- that is, those who are the closest substitutes to the new immigrant flow currently experienced by Europe. > Immigration is often viewed as a large fiscal burden for European public finances or as a possible saviour if correctly harnessed. This has been palpable in the recent political atmospheres of France, Italy, and Germany, for instance. Most empirical studies, however, estimate the fiscal impacts of immigration to be very small. There certainly exist large differences across migrant groups in the costs and benefits they cause for a host country; the net impact depends heavily on the migrants age, education, and duration of stay. On average, immigrants appear to have a minor positive net fiscal effect for host countries. Of course, these benefits are not uniformly distributed across the native population and sectors of the economy. The gist being that overall the adverse effects immigration has on the market is much smaller than people perceive, that those most affected are either the prior generation of immigrants or those with less education and that the negative fiscal impacts are negligible at best, with immigrants generally contributing in a positive way.

mattmanser 7y ago
How am I framing it? What you quoted supports what I said. Economic benefits negligible. Poor people suffer.

chillwaves 7y ago

How can the effects be minor? Immigrants are doing work for cheaper than their domestic counter parts or they wouldn't be employed. This means they are producing economic value in excess of their compensation more than their domestic peers. Where does this excess economic value go? It lowers the cost, for one. This is common sense. Given the amount of illegal immigration and the support structure that exists among employers, you will have a hard time convincing me their effect on the economy is minor. Why would anyone bother with all the trouble if what you say is accurate?

yters 7y ago
I could see an argument that it allows employers to significantly lower their salaries below a livable wage for non illegals who have to pay taxes and such. So, citizens are losing the job and pay which goes to someone that does not contribute to the country via taxes, and perhaps a good chunk is sent back to their home country. Thus, the end result is the country's citizenry become poorer through illegal immigration.
- chillwaves 7y ago
  Immigrants pay taxes. I would worry more about the broader effects of globalization as a whole than I would about immigrants remitted part of their paycheck back to their home country. And dollars aren't what makes the American economy strong -- it's goods and services we get in exchange for them, in the form of imports and (as one example) immigrant labor. Before you come tell me that immigration is a net drain on the American economy, you should understand the dominant view in the field is that this is false. You will need to provide some evidence that what you are saying is true, not just a made up rationale.
  - yters 7y ago
    I said illegal immigration, not immigration in general. Does your analysis show illegal immigration is a net gain?